Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Tigers! · 01-16-2006, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Yeah, and how old are the oldest copies of NT gospels eh?

Do you know that the earliest known copies of the gospels say that Jesus was hung on a pole?

Yes, I do.
Saying he was hung on a pole does not necessarily mean it was not the conventional crucixfication mode (i.e. with a cross beam). Those descriptions do not give enough information for us to confirm or deny the traditional representation.

As to the oldest NT gospels they are older than our oldest copies of Caesar's Gallic Commentaries.

Tigers! · 01-16-2006, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TySixtus

I'll say it again, in big letters.

A body rising from death.

I don't care if 10 people wrote it down. Bodies don't rise from the dead.

...
Ty

Ty
You have just stumbled on the great offence of the cross. Yes, generally speaking people do not rise from the dead. It is not easy to believe or accept. Many people (as witnessed by this thread alone) do not like or even hate the concept.
Nobody says that it would be easy to accept.

pharoah · 01-16-2006, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikem

This line of reasoning seems to come up fairly frequently. Lack of scientific knowledge and illiteracy are one thing, and credulity quite another. People had a pretty shrewd idea about conception and birth, and bodies staying dead. If you check Matthew's gospel, you find that Joseph was sceptical about virginal conception, and wanted to divorce Mary quietly, without putting her to shame. At the end of the same gospel, Matthew 27: 62 - 66, and 28:11 - 15, you see scepticism at work again, firstly to prevent the disciples stealing the body, and then buying off the guard at the tomb to keep quiet. So I don't think that prospective converts would be won over by a simple assertion of resurrection. It would take more than that.

Matthew also said that all of the dead saints left their graves and walked around Jerusalem. Do you believe that? Apparently the early Xians back then believed that. If they believed that incredible claim, then they certainly could easily believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

TySixtus · 01-16-2006, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tigers!

Ty
You have just stumbled on the great offence of the cross.

Offense? Could you clarify?

Quote:

Yes, generally speaking people do not rise from the dead.

Wrong. "Generally", nothing. People who've been dead for three days don't get back up again. No exceptions. If there are, why is the only exception you can name that of Jesus? And why did this have to happen 2,000 years ago, distanced as it was from scientific verification?

Quote:

It is not easy to believe or accept. Many people (as witnessed by this thread alone) do not like or even hate the concept.

I hate any concept that requires one to relinquish reason.

Quote:

Nobody says that it would be easy to accept.

It is impossible to accept if you look at the situation with any intellectual honesty.

I'll say it again: People don't rise from the dead. If you say they do, where is the evidence?

Ty

Tigers! · 01-16-2006, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TySixtus

Offense? Could you clarify?

...
It is impossible to accept if you look at the situation with any intellectual honesty.

I'll say it again: People don't rise from the dead. If you say they do, where is the evidence?

Ty

The offence of the cross is twofold
1. Do we need salvation? If so, from what?
2. If we need salvation then we cannot do it ourselves. It must be done for us.
The biblical message is that we are sinners, beginning at the Fall (Gen 3.). Salvation is necessary but we cannot obtain it for ourselves. That is why Christ had to come & die and be resurrected, once for all.

However if it is not acccepted that salvation is necessary then yes, the cross will appear as vain, foolish and ultimately unbelievable. Hence it's offence.

If it is not offensive then why do so many get so upset over it? They are upset because it is offensive. Nobody likes to be told that they are fallen and that they cannot save themselves. Doesn't sit well with autonomous man.

Tigers! · 01-16-2006, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TySixtus

Offense? Could you clarify?

Wrong. "Generally", nothing. People who've been dead for three days don't get back up again. No exceptions. If there are, why is the only exception you can name that of Jesus? And why did this have to happen 2,000 years ago, distanced as it was from scientific verification?

...

I'll say it again: People don't rise from the dead. If you say they do, where is the evidence?

Ty

(I really must learn how to do multiple quotes.)

If it were done 20 years with scientific verification would you accept it or would you find reasons (excuses?) not to?

TySixtus · 01-16-2006, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tigers!

The offence of the cross is twofold
1. Do we need salvation? If so, from what?

No, we do not need salvation.

Quote:

2. If we need salvation then we cannot do it ourselves. It must be done for us.

Why must it be done for us, if we need it?

Quote:

The biblical message is that we are sinners, beginning at the Fall (Gen 3.). Salvation is necessary but we cannot obtain it for ourselves. That is why Christ had to come & die and be resurrected, once for all.

Oh, that's right. The disgusting, dehumanizing idea that is "Original Sin". Surely one of the most vile doctrines ever printed.

Quote:

If it is not offensive then why do so many get so upset over it? They are upset because it is offensive. Nobody likes to be told that they are fallen and that they cannot save themselves. Doesn't sit well with autonomous man.

You're damn right I don't like it. I don't like the dishonest proposition that I need salvation, and I don't like the idiotic idea that the person I need salvation from is giving me the salvation. It disturbs me as a rational human being, as it should anyone with a scrap of love for humankind and the truth.

Ty

TySixtus · 01-16-2006, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tigers!

(I really must learn how to do multiple quotes.)

If it were done 20 years with scientific verification would you accept it or would you find reasons (excuses?) not to?

I'm confused. What are you asking here?

noah · 01-16-2006, 11:07 PM

The Resurrection is not a big interest of mine but I would like to know one thing. Paul says JCs resurrection is the basis for Christianity. In other words, no resurrection, no Christianity. But what is it about JCs resurrection that is so special? As you know, other people rose or were raised from the dead. Elijah was even taken up to heaven. If resurrection is the main foundation for Christianity, why do Christians worship only Christ?

Sven · 01-17-2006, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

Papias/Eusebius, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and a host of scholars who have studied the texts in depth.

Is it possible that you don't understand the meaning of "references"?
Could you give the names of some of these scholars (you know, neither Papias/Eusebius, Irenaeus, nor Justin Martyr had the means to determine the time of authorship (AFAIK), so let's just ignore them for the moment), and articles, books, websites they wrote?

Quote:

And, no, this is not *proof* of 1st-century authorship, but it is strong evidence.

Yes, I'm aware of that "proof" is not something for science.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-16-2006, 11:07 PM	#59
noah Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Canada Posts: 287	The Resurrection is not a big interest of mine but I would like to know one thing. Paul says JCs resurrection is the basis for Christianity. In other words, no resurrection, no Christianity. But what is it about JCs resurrection that is so special? As you know, other people rose or were raised from the dead. Elijah was even taken up to heaven. If resurrection is the main foundation for Christianity, why do Christians worship only Christ?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.